Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Mind Trapped by: War on the poor

Introduction/over view
There is a war on the poor going on in America right now. It isn't any kind of official mindset, or a goal that was set out before hand. This War is one that is through unintended consequences. It is characterized by making the act of being poor, illegal and punishable, while also creating a social structure that is counter productive to the poor making progress. This is not an attack on the reasoning behind each step, rather it is to point out the collective effect it has against the poor.

Back Story
While I was watching a documentary on the great depression, it presented the story of a family who lost everything and was forced to live in a chicken coup with their TWELVE kids. The number of kids is of course shocking, but if you have ever been around chickens, a chicken coup is about the dirtiest place there is. The thought struck me that if that occurred today, the gov would remove the children from the parents and put them into foster care. Because today, it is illegal to raise children in unsanitary conditions. Which brought me to the realization, that as a society we saw that situation, said it was terrible (which it is) so we made it illegal. This is the war on the poor.

Parenting
Being poor brings with it some inherent dangers. We need only look at very poor countries to see how certain things, while horrible, are a necessary part of being poor. For example a single mother who needs to work in another country may leave their child unattended at home in order to make money. This is illegal here, effectively making it illegal to be that poor. There was a story of a single mother who got a job at Mc Donald's. There was a park across the street so she would drop her young child off at the park while she worked. Of course she was arrested for child neglect. (see link #4). At a different level, we have regulated child care so as to make it prohibitive to the poor as well. There was a local story of a "day care" that comprised of one older woman, with some 50ish kids in her home. It was bizarre, in that she had babies in one room, toddlers in another, and older kids in yet another. Each room in the house was dedicated to a specific age. The problem was that she was "caring" for them alone. That is where she broke the regulations. The effect was that the parents who left their child there willingly, were forced to quit their jobs as the reason the kids were at such a poor day care, was because that is all they could afford.

Housing.
This is the front line for the war on the poor. If the poor have no place to live, then they can never build themselves up. What we have done, is made housing unnecessarily expensive and thus prohibitive to the poor to own, and by consequence created mechanisms that keep them poor through higher rents (due to lack of low cost housing).
This has occurred on two different fronts. The first is land. There simply is no public place, for those who own nothing, to be. We see this play out in tent cities under bridges, that the gov eventually goes and cleans out because it is illegal. But no pubic space is provided for the poor to pitch their tents. So it is just illegal to be that poor. Another, is in how zoning prohibits accommodation of the poor by private individuals. We see this play out in the realm of tiny houses. Where cities have made it illegal to have a home that small. Which means land usage is prohibited. (See link #1 & 2) This leads to the second part of housing that is targeted, that is prejudicial to the poor. While land usage revolves around total square footage, and how many or how close, and what type of homes can be built, regulations on "quality" of home are also prejudicial in the materials used. Suppose one wanted to build a home with no electricity. That would be illegal, because building codes have specific electrical requirements. While that is an extreme, in every aspect of building these regulations stack so as to make the minimum price of a home go from 10-20k to being more like 120-150k. The problem is even greater when one considers that alternative building material is simply not allowed. What I mean is that, in America all the codes for safety revolve around a traditionally stick built home(or other manufactured material like brick or cement). Which in effect makes alternative building materials illegal to use. Things like earth bag construction, Compressed earth block construction, straw bale construction, rammed earth construction etc (see links #3), because they are not directly addressed by the code, are viewed with hostility.

Food
It is illegal for grocery stores to give food away, that they wouldn't sell. So if a piece of meat is out of date, it must be thrown away.. it can't be "given" to the poor.

Conclusion
Ultimately the problem is that there are aspects to being poor that are inherent with the condition. There are certain dangers and risks that inherently go with otherwise basic choices. The war on the poor, as outlined above, is at its essence that we have tended as a society to simply make those conditions and dangers illegal. If I were to forward some solution, I would say to change how we regulate things. Instead of making one form of building illegal, simply put grades, like we do meat. If you want to purchase or build a Grade "A" house, then you can. If you want to purchase or build a Grade "F" house, with no electricity or running water, then again you can. Provide public lands for the poor to build grade "F" houses. As for solutions to the parenting issues, I don't have any idea.

Discuss
Is the idea of the war on the poor well defined here?
Any objections to the above?
Is there another way that we have created hostility to the poor?

Despite the growing enthusiasm for tiny houses, it still isnít easy to legally build them for full-time use. Zoning laws and building codes, by and large, require a minimum square footage for new-construction homes, and progress to reduce that square footage is slow.

As he tows a 96-square-foot house around Des Moines, Joe Stevens is overwhelmed by the intense, sometimes tearful support he receives from churches, schools and service groups for his plan to use the trendy little structures to help homeless people.

But when Stevens actually tried to create a village of the homes in Iowa's largest city, the response was far different.

'We got shot down,' said Stevens, who leads a group that proposed erecting 50 tiny homes on a 5-acre industrial site north of downtown Des Moines. 'It was a sense of fear, uncertainty and doubt, a kneejerk situation.'

Re: Mind Trapped by: War on the poor

I think what youíre describing as a Ďwarí isnít accurate for a couple of reasons:

1. You allude to social, societal, economic, legal and other facets of our society not helping the poor, but the fact is, since the depression, everything has improved for them. And things are being constantly improved - so long as thereís a progressive power base to provide the impetus to make things better. So just on a factual basis, I donít think thereís a war at all.

2. A ďwarĒ means to defeat the enemy and if the enemy is not really ďthe poorĒ but proverty itself, then I would agree with you that thereís a war on poverty. But I find it a stretch that we need to give up land-rights, say, in order to help the poor. We can ďwar on povertyĒ whilst keeping our rights!

A lot of the rules and regulations you describe make sense because people have already died and have been harm; for example, if building codes arenít in place then there would be harm to more than the poor. Those regulations also help ensure that other poor people arenít forced to live in slums that arenít cared for.

Also, bear in mind that the ďpoorĒ in the USA are vastly different from the actual poor elsewhere. Our first-world poor actually have homes and jobs and a massive safety net. Weíre at the stage now where those willing to work do so and we just need to provide them a decent living wage in order to climb the rungs of society.

Re: Mind Trapped by: War on the poor

Originally Posted by SharmaK

I think what you’re describing as a ‘war’ isn’t accurate for a couple of reasons:

1. You allude to social, societal, economic, legal and other facets of our society not helping the poor, but the fact is, since the depression, everything has improved for them. And things are being constantly improved - so long as there’s a progressive power base to provide the impetus to make things better. So just on a factual basis, I don’t think there’s a war at all.

So you are correct that the general life of the poor has improved. Mostly through the basic access to luxury items.
That doesn't really address the "WAR" on the poor as stated. The bases of the OP is that being poor is being made illegal. That they are being deprived of possible food, housing and freedom from jail.

Originally Posted by SharmaK

2. A “war” means to defeat the enemy and if the enemy is not really “the poor” but proverty itself, then I would agree with you that there’s a war on poverty. But I find it a stretch that we need to give up land-rights, say, in order to help the poor. We can “war on poverty” whilst keeping our rights!

The term is being used in a specific way and is described in the OP.
Re-defining it, doesn't really address the ideas presented.

Originally Posted by SharmaK

A lot of the rules and regulations you describe make sense because people have already died and have been harm; for example, if building codes aren’t in place then there would be harm to more than the poor. Those regulations also help ensure that other poor people aren’t forced to live in slums that aren’t cared for.

Also, bear in mind that the “poor” in the USA are vastly different from the actual poor elsewhere. Our first-world poor actually have homes and jobs and a massive safety net. We’re at the stage now where those willing to work do so and we just need to provide them a decent living wage in order to climb the rungs of society.

So, first of all, the poor do live in slums. It can't be helped, it is a fact of life. If you are homeless, you don't have a home. Living on the street is not significantly different than your use of the word "slum".

You seem to be generalizing the "poor", including those that have homes and jobs (the so called working poor). This is not a sufficient response to the housing portion of the OP. It is really just apples and oranges problem.

----Summary--
I don't really see your approach as a valid counter to the op. Non of the points of support are challenged, or proven false. You have more or less side stepped the OP.
As I noted in the OP, many of the regulations are well intended, but they have an effect and that effect hurts the poor in specific ways. Depriving them of otherwise possible food, housing, and freedom from prison.
Of the 3 areas I highlight, none are directly challenged.

Re: Mind Trapped by: War on the poor

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Introduction/over view
There is a war on the poor going on in America right now. It isn't any kind of official mindset, or a goal that was set out before hand. This War is one that is through unintended consequences. It is characterized by making the act of being poor, illegal and punishable, while also creating a social structure that is counter productive to the poor making progress. This is not an attack on the reasoning behind each step, rather it is to point out the collective effect it has against the poor.

I'm gonna say, it is not really a war on the poor, though I definitely agree they are a casualty. In military jargon it would say "collateral damage".

Gov't is a necessary evil for humans. We are a social bunch. Most just could not survive without other people building /doing for us. But it can get out of hand easily. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" kinda stuff.

It reminds me of yrs ago the head of the EPA (I think) said something to the effect:
"I won't rest until the letters EPA have the same affect on people as the letters IRS".

Either way, bldg. codes are supposed to keep us safe. We don't want to look like Haiti every time the ground shakes or a storm comes thru. But when you get numerous agencies involved, each with an agenda, the people that are supposed to be helped are hurt, a recheck is necessary.

One only needs to a current popular legislators saying:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahba...hings-n2538586
"In an interview with Anderson Cooper on "60 Minutes," Ocasio-Cortez discussed being given four Pinocchios by the Washington Post over her tweet claiming that $21 trillion in “Pentagon accounting errors” could’ve paid for two-thirds of her Medicare-for-all proposal, arguing that people shouldn’t focus on the details of what she says, but rather on the morality of her overall argument...

Reality giving way to how one feels about a given subject.....sad....

Thinking has gone the way of writing.
A friend told me his son was supposed to "sign" a gov't form and he printed his name cause:
he was never taught how to "sign" his name!!

So I with agree the poor are getting screwed. I am not sure it is intentional though. Good intentions have and continue to KILL!

Mind Trapped by: War on the poor

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

So you are correct that the general life of the poor has improved. Mostly through the basic access to luxury items.
That doesn't really address the "WAR" on the poor as stated. The bases of the OP is that being poor is being made illegal. That they are being deprived of possible food, housing and freedom from jail.

But poor people activities are being made illegal all the time - itís because we want them to have a better and safer life: yes, kids have to go to school and no, you canít eat bad food or live in dangerous houses.

Eventually, itíll be a win win as the lower boundary is raised.

The term is being used in a specific way and is described in the OP.
Re-defining it, doesn't really address the ideas presented.

It places them in a larger context - the general war against poverty will hurt before it improves things. Beggars canít be choosers remember.

So, first of all, the poor do live in slums. It can't be helped, it is a fact of life. If you are homeless, you don't have a home. Living on the street is not significantly different than your use of the word "slum".

You seem to be generalizing the "poor", including those that have homes and jobs (the so called working poor). This is not a sufficient response to the housing portion of the OP. It is really just apples and oranges problem.

If youíre talking about homelessness, I think youíre worrying about a tiny portion of the population. And theyíre taken care of with shelters and food. We can do better but again, beggars canít be choosers.

----Summary--
As I noted in the OP, many of the regulations are well intended, but they have an effect and that effect hurts the poor in specific ways. Depriving them of otherwise possible food, housing, and freedom from prison.
Of the 3 areas I highlight, none are directly challenged.

We are fighting poverty by forcing people we have no control over to behave in a better way for their own health. At best your argument is true for a subset of the poor and the ones worst off, but again, beggars canít be choosers: they will be helped whether they like it or not.

Re: Mind Trapped by: War on the poor

Originally Posted by SharmaK

But poor people activities are being made illegal all the time - it’s because we want them to have a better and safer life: yes, kids have to go to school and no, you can’t eat bad food or live in dangerous houses.

Eventually, it’ll be a win win as the lower boundary is raised.

Well the logical disconnect is that making some food illegal, doesn't magically create food to feed the poor.
Also, it beggs the question of "unsafe" and instead commits the hasty generalization fallacy.
For example, that just becasue food would not be sold, it is thus not safe for eating.

Take for example a law that says that if a store doesn't sell the food, then they can't give it away. This means that if something goes out of date, the store can't give it away for free, it must throw it away.
I don't see how that adds anything, it only subtracts. Further, it adds to criminality of the poor, because the poor do dumpster dive (like it or not, and "beggers can't be choosers takes on a different conotation than what you offer it).

Originally Posted by SharmaK

It places them in a larger context - the general war against poverty will hurt before it improves things. Beggars can’t be choosers remember.

That isn't really a response, it is a platitude.
The entire point is that the war criminalizes choices the poor must make regardless. (Like living in a tent). The war limits the choices of the poor. Like limiting food sources.
The point is that the war makes rules that don't effect the war on poverty in a positive way. Like by creating food, or creating housing.
Making something illegal, especially for the poor, doesn't magically create food, housing, daycare, education etc.

Originally Posted by SharmaK

If you’re talking about homelessness, I think you’re worrying about a tiny portion of the population. And they’re taken care of with shelters and food. We can do better but again, beggars can’t be choosers.

This is a non response.
That it is a minority doesn't make anything I said false.

Originally Posted by SharmaK

We are fighting poverty by forcing people we have no control over to behave in a better way for their own health. At best your argument is true for a subset of the poor and the ones worst off, but again, beggars can’t be choosers: they will be helped whether they like it or not.

This is false. We are actually controll the people who do have choices, that do effect the health of the poor. See construction argument and food argument.

The entire argument is that they are not being "helped" and your just Na-huhing that point away.
Your entire response ammounts to a begging the question response.

Re: Mind Trapped by: War on the poor

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Well the logical disconnect is that making some food illegal, doesn't magically create food to feed the poor.
Also, it beggs the question of "unsafe" and instead commits the hasty generalization fallacy.
For example, that just becasue food would not be sold, it is thus not safe for eating.

Take for example a law that says that if a store doesn't sell the food, then they can't give it away. This means that if something goes out of date, the store can't give it away for free, it must throw it away.
I don't see how that adds anything, it only subtracts. Further, it adds to criminality of the poor, because the poor do dumpster dive (like it or not, and "beggers can't be choosers takes on a different conotation than what you offer it).

I don't think that the laws about food goes as far as what you're saying. The only laws I've really seen are against feeding the homeless. And it is absolutely for their own safety.

That isn't really a response, it is a platitude.
The entire point is that the war criminalizes choices the poor must make regardless. (Like living in a tent). The war limits the choices of the poor. Like limiting food sources.
The point is that the war makes rules that don't effect the war on poverty in a positive way. Like by creating food, or creating housing.
Making something illegal, especially for the poor, doesn't magically create food, housing, daycare, education etc.

It may not create resources magically but it does put boundaries on dangerous activities, which end up costing the taxpayer anyway. So since we're on the hook for all their mistakes or bad actors, then it is wholly fair for us to decide what they can or cannot eat or do. It should be followed up by providing a safety net that they can use since then we can control things to get move them towards a better life. I really don't see what you're complaining about: beggars literally cannot be choosers in this instance.

This is a non response.
That it is a minority doesn't make anything I said false.

Well, you could be talking about a few hundred people who are really being affected: and in that case, who cares? I haven't seen any numbers from you yet but I think that given we have such a massive safety net, you're not putting forward a good case to change how we're doing things.

This is false. We are actually controll the people who do have choices, that do effect the health of the poor. See construction argument and food argument.

The entire argument is that they are not being "helped" and your just Na-huhing that point away.
Your entire response ammounts to a begging the question response.

You always have to bring this back to economics - is it better to help people in a standardized manner or not? I think that we need to corral the poor towards programs where they can be more substantively helped, but also in a manner that allows us to measure effectiveness of those programs. That can't be done by randomly throwing out food and reducing standards that in the end, just help profiteers.

Re: Mind Trapped by: War on the poor

It may not create resources magically but it does put boundaries on dangerous activities, which end up costing the taxpayer anyway.

But it actually doesn't do what it seeks to do. That was the point.
I am not questioning the motives, so talking about the motives like "it is for their own good".
So for example housing standards, or not having a place for people who have no home to pitch their tents, may some how be reasoned to be "for their good". It doesn't actually help,and actually just makes criminals out of the people in those situations. The law doesn't make anyone in that situation magically have a place to be.. and thus doesn't actually create a boundary for the dangerous activity.

Re: Mind Trapped by: War on the poor

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

But it actually doesn't do what it seeks to do. That was the point.
I am not questioning the motives, so talking about the motives like "it is for their own good".
So for example housing standards, or not having a place for people who have no home to pitch their tents, may some how be reasoned to be "for their good". It doesn't actually help,and actually just makes criminals out of the people in those situations. The law doesn't make anyone in that situation magically have a place to be.. and thus doesn't actually create a boundary for the dangerous activity.

The laws donít necessarily make poor people criminals but the people that build the houses. And if theyíre living in tents, how are they keeping clean? You know about how in San Francisco theyíre using the streets as their toilet. So the laws are for everyoneís benefit - just because theyíre poor, it doesnít mean that they can turn our neighborhoods into dumpsters.
Remember rule 1: beggars canít be choosers.

Re: Mind Trapped by: War on the poor

Originally Posted by SharmaK

The laws don’t necessarily make poor people criminals but the people that build the houses. And if they’re living in tents, how are they keeping clean? You know about how in San Francisco they’re using the streets as their toilet. So the laws are for everyone’s benefit - just because they’re poor, it doesn’t mean that they can turn our neighborhoods into dumpsters.
Remember rule 1: beggars can’t be choosers.

You are completely missing the point.

1) The laws have good intentions. So your tent city is a good example.
2) The laws Don't actually fix the problem the poor face, it just makes it illegal. So again for the tent city. The law that makes it illegal for them to live under a bridge and be dirty, doesn't actually clean any of them, or house any of them. It only makes them law breakers.
3) This is as opposed to providing a place for them to legally pitch their tents. maybe one where public toilets are provided (if that is a major concern).

Your talking about #1, like it invalidates #2. You are offering a platitudes of "beggars can't be choosers" but they aren't being offered choices at all or otherwise doing a better #3. Their choices tend to simply be criminalized as opposed to fixed.
The tent city, is the ultimate "I don't care where, but not around me" sort of attitude that our nation has taken as an official approach to poverty. (Official as in it is wide spread, and evident in the laws per 1/2/3 above.

Re: Mind Trapped by: War on the poor

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

You are completely missing the point.

1) The laws have good intentions. So your tent city is a good example.
2) The laws Don't actually fix the problem the poor face, it just makes it illegal. So again for the tent city. The law that makes it illegal for them to live under a bridge and be dirty, doesn't actually clean any of them, or house any of them. It only makes them law breakers.
3) This is as opposed to providing a place for them to legally pitch their tents. maybe one where public toilets are provided (if that is a major concern).

Your talking about #1, like it invalidates #2. You are offering a platitudes of "beggars can't be choosers" but they aren't being offered choices at all or otherwise doing a better #3. Their choices tend to simply be criminalized as opposed to fixed.
The tent city, is the ultimate "I don't care where, but not around me" sort of attitude that our nation has taken as an official approach to poverty. (Official as in it is wide spread, and evident in the laws per 1/2/3 above.

Beggars can't be choosers is not just a platitude: by all laws and moral codes imagined or otherwise, if you, a beggar, have nothing and there are people that will give up resources and sacrifice time to help you, then you really do not have a choice if you choose to live in a society. Otherwise, be homeless elsewhere!

These aren't simply laws to ask nicely for them to behave in a certain way, like not make a dirty tent city in the middle of town. These are demands that if they choose to live in within a society, then they need to behave in a certain way, or not live in the town at all. I don't want my town to be poop city that San Francisco is!

So I think you're conflating two different things: helping the homeless and ensuring we don't reduce our own cleanliness and safety in doing so. The latter always trumps the former, due to beggars cannot be choosers.

P.S.

You are offering a platitudes of "beggars can't be choosers" but they aren't being offered choices at all

That's kinda the point - they can't be choosers because they don't have choices. And they don't have choices because they have done nothing, and have nothing to warrant those choices.

Re: Mind Trapped by: War on the poor

1. The laws are there to help, not hinder
2. The laws are also there to maintain cleanliness and standards
3. Beggars can’t be choosers

So basically. It’s not a war on the poor at all.

Except, that it doesn't actually rebut anything the OP says.

The war on the poor is defined by the side effects of your 1,2 and 3. It is not a denial of those things.
Well, except with #1. Help or hinder who specifically. Because I point out how it specifically hinders the poor.
At best your just Na-huhing the op away. Which isn't interesting.

For example, take housing.
From the OP,

This is the front line for the war on the poor. If the poor have no place to live, then they can never build themselves up. What we have done, is made housing unnecessarily expensive and thus prohibitive to the poor to own, and by consequence created mechanisms that keep them poor through higher rents (due to lack of low cost housing).

How does your response address that?
first, it contradicts your #1, and your #1 doesn't rebut the reasoning of the OP at all. This is your Na-huh response.
Second, sure the laws are for standards, but they are not all equally necessary and unnecessarily remove choices that the poor (who are not beggars inherently). In effect turning them into beggars. Because if you raise housing prices so that the poor can't possibly afford it, then they are forced to beg or depend on housing from others.

so.. your response simply isn't sufficient to address the OP. It is pie in the sky platitudes that fail any basic application to the OP.

Re: Mind Trapped by: War on the poor

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Except, that it doesn't actually rebut anything the OP says.

The war on the poor is defined by the side effects of your 1,2 and 3. It is not a denial of those things.
Well, except with #1. Help or hinder who specifically. Because I point out how it specifically hinders the poor.
At best your just Na-huhing the op away. Which isn't interesting.

Well. Perhaps thatís all there is. I mean, for there to be a war, there has to be sides and youíve really only had a one sided view of things.

When I explain the other side, the only conclusion to draw is that there is no war.

For example, take housing.
From the OP,

How does your response address that?
first, it contradicts your #1, and your #1 doesn't rebut the reasoning of the OP at all. This is your Na-huh response.
Second, sure the laws are for standards, but they are not all equally necessary and unnecessarily remove choices that the poor (who are not beggars inherently). In effect turning them into beggars. Because if you raise housing prices so that the poor can't possibly afford it, then they are forced to beg or depend on housing from others.

so.. your response simply isn't sufficient to address the OP. It is pie in the sky platitudes that fail any basic application to the OP.

Poor people will always be forced to beg, borrow and steal - though not as much as before; which is my main point: there is no war going on otherwise, there would be no safety net.

Youíre just cherry picking minor issues that arenít really that bad in context, and indeed an improvement for all. So I donít buy the idea that thereís a war at all. Maybe some things that need improvement, which I imagine is happening as we speak. So I have to reject your whole notion as being unsupported.

Re: Mind Trapped by: War on the poor

3 cities in the U.S. have ended chronic homelessness: Hereís how they did it
Nine more have ended veteran homelessness. Itís part of a national program called Built for Zero that uses a data-based approach to help officials figure out exactly who needs what services. Now itís launching in 50 more cities.

So I think that should seal my point and thus defeat the OP. There is no war at all and the OP is cherry picking minor issues and blowing them out of proportion; particularly those around housing.

Re: Mind Trapped by: War on the poor

Well. Perhaps that’s all there is. I mean, for there to be a war, there has to be sides and you’ve really only had a one sided view of things.

When I explain the other side, the only conclusion to draw is that there is no war.

That makes no sense. There has to be sides, and I only showed one side... so there is no war?
If I showed a side, then there are sides.. so then there is a war.. at least according to your reasoning here.
Your conclusion doesn't follow. As you have falsified your objection.

More specifically, your objecting to the words i have used "war on the poor" rather than the meaning and explanation I have offered as to what it is, and what it entails. your just reacting to a branding issue, not the substance.

Originally Posted by SHARMAK

Poor people will always be forced to beg, borrow and steal - though not as much as before; which is my main point: there is no war going on otherwise, there would be no safety net.

You haven't shown or even argued to this point "not as much as before". So how you inject it now as though it is some supported or obvious point is confusing.

Also, this is that branding objection, vs real substance objection. You simply don't like it being called "war on the poor". You haven't falsified a single point or even objected that any of them are happening.

Originally Posted by SHARMAK

You’re just cherry picking minor issues that aren’t really that bad in context, and indeed an improvement for all. So I don’t buy the idea that there’s a war at all. Maybe some things that need improvement, which I imagine is happening as we speak. So I have to reject your whole notion as being unsupported.

This is another case of your conclusion not following in any sort of logic.
I'm cherry picking issues... which means I have selected existing issues.
therefore you reject my claims as unsupported.
That doesn't follow. if i have cherry picked, then I have offered support. Your counter is that there is a larger context.
That doesn't mean I have not offered support.

Originally Posted by SHARMAK

So I think that should seal my point and thus defeat the OP. There is no war at all and the OP is cherry picking minor issues and blowing them out of proportion; particularly those around housing.

Talk about cherry picking. A city with 100 homeless vets that gets housing or "fixed" and now the points I posted in the OP which are nation wide and apply to every single city in the U.S. is false?
sorry, that is cherry picking by definition. Not to mention it only deals with vets.. as though they are the only homeless or poor effected by the OP.

Second, you are continuing in a misunderstanding. The OP is not about attitudes or the desire of the public. It seems that everyone wants to end homelessness.
the laws are generally well intentionally and are not always targeting the poor specifically, though some do.
That is not what the OP or the "War on the Poor" is about. You seem to be stuck on those to points, and it prevents you from offering substantive responses that are relevant to the op.

What you haven't done is shown that the argument in the OP, in regards to housing for example, doesn't adversely effect the poor as explained. You have made it clear that you really, really don't like that fact being called a "war on the poor", but that is not really relevant.

Re: Mind Trapped by: War on the poor

That makes no sense. There has to be sides, and I only showed one side... so there is no war?

You only showed one side which doesnít demonstrate a fair look at the issues and why things are the way they are.

If I showed a side, then there are sides.. so then there is a war.. at least according to your reasoning here.
Your conclusion doesn't follow. As you have falsified your objection.

No, thatís my point: you just complained and called that one sided set of complaints a war.

More specifically, your objecting to the words i have used "war on the poor" rather than the meaning and explanation I have offered as to what it is, and what it entails. your just reacting to a branding issue, not the substance.

Itís your OP title and your hyperbole! Donít complain if I take that as the trigger for the debate.

You haven't shown or even argued to this point "not as much as before". So how you inject it now as though it is some supported or obvious point is confusing.

It is not obvious that the ďpoorĒ now are much better off than in the past?

This is another case of your conclusion not following in any sort of logic.
I'm cherry picking issues... which means I have selected existing issues.
therefore you reject my claims as unsupported.
That doesn't follow. if i have cherry picked, then I have offered support. Your counter is that there is a larger context.
That doesn't mean I have not offered support.

I think I showed that there are enormous efforts to help the poor. You donít have a case at all.

Talk about cherry picking. A city with 100 homeless vets that gets housing or "fixed" and now the points I posted in the OP which are nation wide and apply to every single city in the U.S. is false?
sorry, that is cherry picking by definition. Not to mention it only deals with vets.. as though they are the only homeless or poor effected by the OP.

It deals with all poor and it is spreading. Thatís my point - there are active programs helping the poor not hindering them.

Second, you are continuing in a misunderstanding. The OP is not about attitudes or the desire of the public. It seems that everyone wants to end homelessness.
the laws are generally well intentionally and are not always targeting the poor specifically, though some do.
That is not what the OP or the "War on the Poor" is about. You seem to be stuck on those to points, and it prevents you from offering substantive responses that are relevant to the op.

What you haven't done is shown that the argument in the OP, in regards to housing for example, doesn't adversely effect the poor as explained. You have made it clear that you really, really don't like that fact being called a "war on the poor", but that is not really relevant.

I have explained the housing issues - safety is a good thing and there are programs to help. I donít see how you can still say housing is a problem versus saying the truth - that the housing issues are being dealt with.

Re: Mind Trapped by: War on the poor

Originally Posted by SHARMAK

You only showed one side which doesn’t demonstrate a fair look at the issues and why things are the way they are.

what do you mean "fair look"? I am not arguing for or against the fairness of it.
for all I care, you can say to the OP.
You know what, you are correct, and it is a good thing. Thus conciding the OP, and offering your opinion.
Kinda like what you are doing by not addressing the issues the OP raises or objecting to the ideas presented.

Originally Posted by SHARMAK

No, that’s my point: you just complained and called that one sided set of complaints a war.

Tough.

Originally Posted by SHARMAK

It’s your OP title and your hyperbole! Don’t complain if I take that as the trigger for the debate.

haha.. you said trigger.
did I step on a snowflake?

Originally Posted by SHARMAK

It is not obvious that the “poor” now are much better off than in the past?

Not in relation to the points raised in the OP.
For example, I didn't argue that the medical field has a war on the poor. Or that the transit system is part of the war on the poor.
Seems to me those things have generally increased the general welfair of everyone.. almost like a "trickl down" effect.

Originally Posted by SHARMAK

I think I showed that there are enormous efforts to help the poor. You don’t have a case at all.

I have not argued that there are not efforts to help the poor.
Because that is not the nature of the OP.

The argument is not. "there are actoins people take because they want to hurt the poor, and these actions constitute a war against the poor".
the argument is more
"People want to help the poor, but tend to make certain aspects of simply being poor illegal in ways that don't actually fix the problems, these actions const a 'war against the poor".

Originally Posted by SHARMAK

It deals with all poor and it is spreading. That’s my point - there are active programs helping the poor not hindering them.

O.k. See above. That is really beside the point.

Originally Posted by SHARMAK

I have explained the housing issues - safety is a good thing and there are programs to help. I don’t see how you can still say housing is a problem versus saying the truth - that the housing issues are being dealt with.

when you say "explained" what you are referencing is your declarations that are not supported at all.
It has been much more of a "Na-huh" response from you. I offered specific examples, and specific issues.

for example, my point about alternative building materials that would bring down housing costs. Are not "safety" issues at all.
so your objection simply doesn't rise to the level necessary to actually address that point in the OP.
You haven't "explained" anything.

First, there is now huge evidence that extremely high rents are a fundamental cause of poverty, especially in London and other high demand areas, as shown by the recent London Fairness Commission report. Even for those who are better off, many now pay half, sometimes well over half, of their income to their landlord. It has a major impact on their standard of living and the reward they receive from working.